HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! (Page 20)

Thanks Travis. I'm actually going to do the test tonight - I've planned it for a few days now. I'm just struggling with all this heart rate stuff because (Mike, look away!) I've never seen my heart rate get above 184 (MHR I guess), and yet even doing very easy stuff, it tends to go up very fast. I'm used to pushing myself extremely hard and even when I have an RPE of 5-6, my heart rate is already in the mid to upper 150s. My 5k PR, as of just a couple months ago, is 20:22. I can run a single mile in about 5:30. But, to get my heart rate low enough to even be in the 140s I am running a 9:30-10:00 mile. Can this possibly be right? Or, is this a symptom of my aerobic capacity being quite pathetic?

What is your shoe size? 

You are right. I am about to make fun of you. 

Your HR is, what it is. Don't worry about it unless of course it's 250, then we might have a problem. Either way, there is no 'too high', 'too low' etc. Just do the LT test and see what shakes out. 

See that was much less painful than what your older brother used to do to you. :-)

Alright! I will!

Also, thanks for taking the time. Since checking this place out, especially this thread (thanks google), I'm really thinking about buying a plan w/online coaching. This site "seems pretty legit'" as the young'uns would say.

Coolio. Looking forward to helping you with your training. 

Absolutely that can be right.  Based on  your 5k PR that's the pace you should do most of your training at. 

There is nothing wrong with you.  But your perception is wrong.  You have a skewed idea of run training paces that's all.

I have found this site to be tremendously helpful and this thread in particular...  I was basing everything off my max heart rate before Mike started this thread....  I don't think you will find a better bang for the buck anywhere online.  Mike and the guys at D3 Multisport are very generous with their knowledge and time...   Google has served you well in finding BT.  

PS  Mike also sells computrainers (or at least he did) at a very good price as well on the bike side....

I used to think 165-170 was that RPE, and my LT is in the 180's (I should re-check soon). I come from a short, high intensity background too.  My perception of RPE was WAY off.  Do the test and then look at this again. I had a very hard time going slow enough to keep HR down.  Only way I could do it was to run often on a treadmill.  Once I got the hang of it, then I could run outside again.

BINGO! Typically, take your LT pace (1 hour) and drop 1:30-2:00 per mile and that's your 'easy' pace. Also take your HR for a 5k and multiply by 95%. Take ~20 beats from this and this is your easy run HR. I can tell you that this year my average pace has been around 8:10 (all runs since Jan 1) and my LT pace is about 6:40 or so - and that's 1:30 slower. It's not going to be the same for everyone but 'pretty' close. 

Thanks Travis - and yes I still have a Computrainer discount. I was thinking of offering up a free Computrainer plan for anyone who orders a computrainer through me - not sure how much interest I'd have? 

Alright Mike, quick question for you. I just read this entire thread though I remember reading pieces of it many years ago. I am now trying to train by HR since I am base building for IMTX in May. Given my lack of training the last few years this is merely a 'finish' and not die race for me this go round.

Since starting training back 6 months or so ago, all of my runs have been a 5/1 run/walk combo. I am planning on using this rotation through IM as well. When I do my run LT test, should I use this rotation during the test or do the 30' TT at full effort. Given my current run fitness I don't think I would have an issue going all out for 30' I just wonder how that test result would compare to doing the same test at a 5/1 interval and which would be more helpful in my training. Thanks for the help!

Luke

Great question! Honestly, I would do both tests. One week do the 5/1 test and the next week or a week later do the 30' test. It would be interesting to see how it turns out. I think doing the 30' test will give you the number you need. I've never done a 5/1 test, but have used 8/1 or 9/1 run/walk method and I know from my LT test where to set the HR ranges during the run portion. So....what I am saying is you'd be fine with the 30' test, but IF you are willing it would be interesting to see what will happen with the walk/run test as well. 

As you get more fit, you may want to increase the running and move to an 8/2 or 9/1 ratio. You don't have to, but that's just an option for you. 

I hope this helps. 

I don't know that there necessarily would be an advantage, but you should experiment with different strategies as you need to find the sweet spot. If that's the only combo you tried, I would definitely mix it up. If you can run for 9 or 10' and have the same 'recovery HR', then theoretically, you can get to the finish line faster, which is the point. Right? ;-) Why spend an extra 30 minutes walking if you don't have to. 

OK Mike, I did it. Today I missed my bike/swim workouts and decided to run tonight instead. About 5 minutes into my run I decided to do the LT test that I had been putting off for several weeks. Here is my log posting from tonight

So I calculated my HR zones using the BT calculator and I am actually right where I thought I would be. My question is this. Lately my avg HR for my runs has been in my Z2 but that is with my 5:1 run:walk interval. I'm guessing that now I should concentrate on keeping my HR while I am running in z2 and not worry about my average over the whole enchilada. Am I correct?

Great to hear - my recommendation would be to use 95% of that 181 avg just to be safe. Since you'll go into your calendar right now and put the next test down on there for December 16th, you should be good to go. 

Good on you for getting it done!

Here's the deal on the run:walk. Keep the HR in Z2. Walk briskly during the 1' walk. Do this for an hour, and I am wiling to bet you are still going to see a Z2 run over that time period. 

I have limited access to other websites but why is the 220-age method wrong?

Maybe Mike will weigh in - but I think the 95% calculation is to approximate the pace/HR you could hold for 1 hour.  You did a 30 minute test where you recorded your avg hr over the last 20 minutes.  You have to then adjust that # to approximate a result that could be maintained for 60 minutes.

Hello. I had a quick question. I have been meaning to do a field LT test but just haddn't gotten around to it. A few weeks ago i ran a 10k. I really performed much better than I thought I would. I beat my PR by about 20 second a mile. I left everything I had out on the course. I didn't even think until later that I could use the race to do a field test. but I did start my HR monitor at the beginning of the race and stopped it about 30-45 seconds after I crossed the finish line. Will the average HR I get be good enough for my LT?

Thanks

I've heard a few things on this subject.  Some will say that it is better to do a stand alone LT test and not a race.  I have come across articles that state you can use a 10k to approximate LT.  What was your time?  I suppose that could also determine whether or not you could use it.  

Editted fur spealiing

I finished the race in 51:59.

Thanks

double post

It's based on an amalgamation of data which has a range to it.  Where do you fall on the bell curve? Who knows until you test.  You could be under-training or over-training using 220-Age, but you shouldn't if using the HR zones from the field test LT.